
* 4^ 4^, * 























o""^ -^O 





4> ..'■•. •*.. .0* 







^.<''' •^': %/ *^^: "W^ -■ 



















1^/ ** *^ ■ 




OF 

MR. PATTON, OF VIRGINIA, 

ON 

THE TARSFF Bllil^, I 

AXI) • 

IN REPLY TO A SPEECH OF MR. ADAIMS, OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



Delivered ui the House of Representatives, February 5 and 7, 18o3. 



Mr. Patton said, that he had not intended, until the evening befmc 
ask the attention of the coinmittec to any observations of iiis upon the inir 
tant measure now under discussion. 

He did not now propose to enter upon any examination of the general pi 
ciples of the American System. He concurred in the sentiment which 
been expressed, and he believed was univeiT.ally entertained in the Hot 
that no argument, on either side, was likely to produce a change of opini 
either as to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality — the expediency or 
expediency, as a measure ot national policy and justice — of tiiat system. 
ten or twelve years these questions, in all th.eir aspects, had engaged the 
liberations, not only of Congress, but of the people of the United States, 
with continually increasing anxiety and solemnity. Those wiio were no 
this time satisfied upon these questions, must be cither above, or below 
beyond the reach of argument. 

In the progress of the discussion, not only hostility of interest, and coi 
quent collision of opinion, between diilerent classes of men, have develo • 
themselves^ but they have unfortunately assumed a sectional location, ou 
■which have arisen geographical parties, who, pushing tlicir opinions to ' 
tremes, have brought about a state of things which,' in the opinion of ■ 
reflecting men, is more menacing to the peaceful continuance of the Un 

I than any which has ever existed since the establishment of independence. 

■ So long, said Mr. F., as tlie discussion pursued the ordinary path, J 
common with most of those with wliom I act on this subject, abstained 
intended to refrain from contributing to c debate which, confined almost 

r-clusively to the opponents of the biU, they seemed disposed, for reasons 

\ kno\fn to themselves, to protract to an almost interminable length. 

\ course was to wait patiently until this tide of discussion should have an t 
and avoid saying any thing that, by possibility, might tend to increase 
excitement of feeling so unfriendly to a peaceful and harmonious adjustn 
of this distracting contest, until some ii^cisive indication v^as given by 
body as to its intention to do any thing l Iculatcd to ameliorate the gr 
ances of which the South complained. 

The debate, however, has suddenly taken a new and unexpected tun 
the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] to st 
out the enacting clause of the bill, a motion which, if successful, levelb 
fatal blow at all prospect of conciliation and peace, and which he has thoi 
proper to accompany with remarks of a character, uttered in a temper, 
indicating a spirit, in my judgment, extremely unsuited to the occasion, 
crisis in theafttiirs of the country, and the source from which they proceec 
remarks, which I concur with the honorable genlle\nan from South Carol 
[Mr. Drayton,] in considering as well calculated, as any that could 1: 
been uttered, to throw a firebrand into our counsels, to add fuel to a fl: 
already burning too fiercely, and to arouse passions, and exasperate pr 
dices, which it ought to be the business of every patriot to ilo all in his po 
to extinguish, to allay, and subdue. Standing here as tlie Representativ 
ip&rt of a State whicli, by her Legislature, has so recently manifested, ^ 



'3 

I iiiiL'KamplrtI uiiaiiiniity, her dcsiie to preserve peace, by entreating 
i.irtios to the imneiidini; contlict to forbear from proceeding to extremi- 
Ahich has expended so much blood and treasure in defending and main- 
1" the liberties of these States; and contributed so largely, both in coun- 
d ill action, towards creating and preserving, and has so deep a stake m, 
■ oiUinnaiice of this I'nion. it ^\ns impossible to suppress the.expression ot 
■L'lc!, surpii-o, and alaim, at the s-pirit displayed so unexpectedly by the 
• mail fiom Massachusetts. • . xu • 

what purpose I know not it has seemed good to him to drag into this 
.»i()ii topics which have nothing to do with the bill before tlus committee. 
I) invite us, by the course of his remarks, to enter upon that wide tie d 
litical metapiiysics, which, from another source, had been unfortunately 
(1 out upon the political arena prematurely, unnecessarily, and, in my 
nent, unwisely. 1 allude to the President's proclamation, 
e gentleman has avowed opinions, in relation to one ot those questions, 
,1 have thus been presented to the American public, involving some prin- 
s, in relation to the origin and character of this Government, which the 
of Virginia has uniformly and strenuously denied to be true; and which 
I it to be my duty, concurring, as I do, in this opinion, and since no othei 
r delegation have chosen to do so, not to permit to pass, without entering 
•rotest against, and making an humble ettbrt to refute thein._ I shall con- 
nyself to those topics whicii tl\e gentleman has drawn into discussion, and 
not enter upon any of the others connected with them in the document 
lich I have already referred; and for the full discussion of all tUe theories' 
lined in wliich, a more suitable occasion will be a,ftbrded, in all proba- 
', during the session. 

le proposition which he asserts, in substance, is, that this Government is a 
)letely sovereign Government, created by the people of the United States 
le people, and exercising its powers by the authority of the people, as 
)oliticaI community. And by what argument does he sustain this propo- 
1.'' It is (ounded exclusively upon a part of the preamble of the consti- 
n, '' We, the people of the United States." And he says, that, not t( 
t the truth of his pioposition, is "to give the lie" to the express declara- 
it the constitution itself. Sir, it seems to me that a candid examination 
IS part of the preamble, as well as every other part of it, leads to an op- 
e conclusion; and that, to admit the interpretation contended for by hiiriy 
t only to pervert tin: obvious sense ui' tlie passage he relies on, but "to 
the lie" (to borrow tlie gentleman's language) to the whole preamble — to 
tlicle of ratification, and to the most notorious historical facts. This ex- 
ion ()f "' \\'e, the people of the United i^tates," was objected toby Patrick 
•y, in the Virginia Convention called to consider of the ratification of 
:onstitution, as justifying the inference that a consolidated Government 
iitended to be created. And he asked by wiiat authority the Convention 
iscd the expression '' we, the people," instead of" we, the States." He 
iiisucred by Mr. Madison, also a member of that Convention, who had 
recently been a member of the Convention which framed the constitu- 
who had taken a prominent part in forming, and has since done more to 
e it fiom the perversions and misconstructions to which it has at difFer- 
imes been exposed, than any man living or dead. This is his language: 
!io are the parties to it (the constitution?) The people— but not the 
[lie as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen 
crclg?tties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated Govern- 
iit, the assent of a majority of the people woyld be sufficient for its 
iblishment; and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining 
tes would be bound by the act of a majority, even if they unanimously 
aobatcd iL Were it such a Government as is now suggested, it would 
low binding on the people of this State, without having had the privilege 
leliberating upon it. Should all the States adopt it, it will then be a Go- 
nment established by tlie thirteen States of America, not through the 
rvention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large." 
lould be glad to know Avhat is the diflereuce between these two expres- 



sioiis, '' we, the people o{ the United States,"' and '' we, the people of the 
States united." Do they not express precisely the same idea? Do they not 
both assert precisely the same historical fact, viz. that the union of States 
was assented to by the people of the States, as such? 

Let us look a little further into this preamble. What did "the people of the 
United States" propose to do? Why, to form a 7;iore perfect union, &c. 
Now, who ever heard of a union of people in a political association? The 
term union, applied to States, is intelligible and appropriate- It was, then, 
the people of the States who agreed to the union of the Slates. The 
whole amount of it was, that they resolved to continue the union, which ex- 
isted before under the articles of confederation, and to make that union more 
perfect. This union, it is admitted by the gentleman, constituted a mere 
confederacy; but the origin of both is the same — created alike by the authority 
of the States: their assent being given, in one case, by the State Govern- 
ments; in the other, by the people of each State. And what was it that, in this 
last case, was created? a constitution for the people of America? a constitu- 
tion for " the people of the United States?" No, neither; but, as the preamble 
itself declares, " a constitution for the United States." This was not even a 
new name for the Government; the first section of the articles of confedera- 
tion declares, that ''the style of this confcdeiacy shall be t'lie United States 
of America." 

This view of the question i^ fully sustained by an authority whicii, in Vir- 
ginia, has always been regarded as entitled to the highest respect, and cannot 
fail to be so regarded every where, for the ability with which it treats of the 
origin and character of the Government, and the lucid manner in which It ex- 
pounds those doctrines of constitutif-nai construction upon which the republi- 
can party came into power in 1801. 1 beg leave to read a passage which places 
this matter, which I am now considering, in a clear light. 

In support of that branch of the third resolution of 1708, which affirms 
*Mhat the States are parties to the constitution," after enumerating the va- 
rious senses in which the term "States" is used in the constitution, and, among 
others, that, " lastly, it means the people composing those political societies 
in their highest sovereign capacity,"' the report drawn by Mr. Madison pro- 
ceeds thus:'" In the present instance, whatever different constructions of the 
term "States," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at last 
concur in that last mentioned, because in that sense the_ constitution was 
submitted to tlic " States;" in that sense the '"''Slates^'' ratified it; and in that 
sense of the term ^'^ States,-' they are consequently parties to the compact, 
from which the power of the Federal Government results,"' This is, in truth, 
Kothing more than a condensed statement of historical facts. 

The article of ratification found at the close of the constitution seems to me 
TO confute the interpretation for v^hich lie contends. The ratification of nine 
States shall be "sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between 
the States so ratifying the satn-e^^' not over the people of America, or over 
the people of the United States even, but between the States so ratifying the 
same. The charter itself thus, at the end of it, declaring, in unequivocal 
terms, its character, when formed, to be a Government between States, as in 
its preamble it had deduced its own origin from, and declared its object to 
be for, — a union of Stales. Compare this article of ratification, and the pre- 
amble of the constitution, with the old articles of confederation. They were 
called "articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States of 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay," &c. &.c. naming the whole thirteen; 
their style was, as before stated, "the United States of America." They 
were, then, "articles of confederation and perpetual union between the 
United States of America;" and so this constitution was established "be- 
tween the United States of America." I put it to any candid man to say if 
there can be a distinction made between the foundation and origin of the two 
Governments, as to the question whether they were compacts between States. 
The source from which both Governments are derived was the same. The 
articles of confederation constituted a g-ovemraent for the confederacy as 



nmrli as lliid {;i)n.4il.iitiu!i coiisliUUeo a govermaeid i'ur the Union. They are 
bolli GoveriniK'nts— coii.stUutioiial Govciiimeuts-— compacts between sove- 
reign States. They diftcr as to tlie extent of the powers conferred upon the 
Govcrnineiit, and in the mode in whicii those powers are to be exercised: in 
one case, the action of the (joveinment being upon the States? in the other, 
Mp:)!i tlie ciiizcns directly, in its mode of action, this Government is partly 
iKitioual and p;iit!y federal; in its orii^n and foundation, it is wholly federal. 
'!'lie Sidles created— //ic Slates preserve — tJie States alone can reform, alter, 
or abolish it. 

The honorable gentleman says, and lie seemed to be transported into the 
ro,i;ions of poetry at the thought, that '* there is a moral grandeur and subli- 
luily" in the idea of this great Government over the whole people as one peo- 
ple. I will not dispute with liiin about a matter of taste, though it seems to_ 
me to be an essential ingredient iu the grandeur and sublimity of an idea of 
governmeni, that it should luWe some foundation in truth. If the picture of 
moral grandeur and sublimity presented to the mind by this imaginary govern- 
ment of one people was only completed, as there is some reason to appre- 
hend it will be, by esigrafting upon the constitution, and establishing in prac- 
tice, the *''' common defence'' doctrine of the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
auri tlie '' general ivcifarc"' doctrine by which the gentleman from Rhode 
island, [Mr. Bukges,] resolves all questions of constitutional power, then 
we should have established a vast consolidated empire, with a government of 
uidiniited powers, apparently — the consummation of the hopes and eftbrts of 
one class of iwliticians in this country. Let me oppose to this idea of moral 
grandeur and sublimity, th.e sentiment of the venerable sage and patriot of 
Montpelier, who says, in that report v/lnch I have already quoted, that "it 
adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitu- 
tion, that it icsts on the legitimate and solid foundation," derived from its 
being formed by " the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign 
capacity.-' 

It may suit the fancy of a poet to rcvgl in the " moral grandeur and sub- 
limity of an idea" of government which exists only in the imagination — the 
olVspring of fiction: but, to my mind, there is something more grand and 
elevating in the contemplations of a statesman who admires the stability and 
dignity of a government resting upon the solid basis of truth and reality. 

1 wdl proceed to reply to some other portions of the gentleman's remarks. 
A new, I believe 'perfectly new, and most extraordinary argument is ad- 
vanced by him in favor of the protection which he claims for domestic 
manufactures. 

It is claimed as an equivalent for the protection given (as is alleged) by the 
constitution to the slave interest of the South. Far be it from me to under- 
value the benelits conferred upon the South, no less than upon other parts of 
the country by this Union, i have endeavored to calculate its value, and 
deem it incalculable. 1 should regard its dissolution as one of the greatest 
evils which could betiill, not ourselves and our posterity only, but the whole 
human family; it would blast forever the best hopes of the friends of freedom 
throughout the world, and extinguish the lire of liberty upon all the altars on 
which it has been kindled by our example and our success. The beneficent 
protection afforded by the Union is, that it is the bond of domestic tranquillity, 
the safeguard against intestine commotions and civil wars, and the arm of our 
del'encc against toreign aggression. But the only just and legitimate protec- 
tion which this Government, or any other Government, can extend to indi- 
viduals, or classes of individuals, is to secure them in the enjoyment of the 
fruits of their own industry; in the unfettered exercise of their own skill and 
enterprise, and in the pursuit of their own happiness, in their own way; with 
this restriction only, in tiie language of the maxim of the civil law, that they 
shall so use their own as not to injure that of another. This great rule is the 
eorncr-stone of every well constructed edifice of government. I believe the 
Government of this Union was designed by its framers to rest on this solid 
and just foundation; and if it were thus adtninistered, it would secure all the 



purposes for which it was foimed— "establish justice, ensure domestic tran- 
quillity, provide for the common defence, promote tlie general welfare, and 
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'- But when 
any Government imposes burdens upon the community wliicli the legitimate 
purposes of the Government do not call for— takes money out of the pockets 
of the people at large, not required for public uses, but for the benefit of a 
particular class of individuals— its action is essentially unjust and tyrannical, 
no matter under what forms or pretexts it is done. And, sir, v.hen a claim 
is made to persevere in a system of uneaual and unjust taxation, (as we of 
the South regard the tariff system to be,) even at the hazard of civil war, 
upon the allegation that the JSouth receives an equivalent for these exactions 
m some peculiar protection wiiich is afforded by the constitution and the 
Union to our slave interest, I feel it to be proper to meet the assertion and 
argument on the threshold, and to examine i^ it has anv foundation in the 
constitution. I deny it utterly. 

The gentleman from ISIassachusetts has referred to various provisions of 
the constitution as sustaining him in this novel position. 

1st. The provision by which, in apportioning representation among the 
tetates, it is required that three-fifths of the slaves shall be enumerated. 

2d. The 4th section of the 4th article of the coiistitutioji, which provides 
that the United States shall, "on application of the Legislature or of the 
Executive," (when the Legislature cannot be convened^) " protect each- ' 
fetate " against domestic violence." 

3d. The authority given to Congress to raise and support armies and a 
navy. 

As to the first, I need hardly remind this committee, and certainly not the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, that the question as to the proper basis of 
taxation and representation, in relation to the slave interest of the South, was 
coeval with the declaration of independence. Immediately after that event, 
the articles of confederation were discussed in the old Congress of w6. The 
article relating to this matter, as originally proposed, and finally adopted, 
provided, that " all charges of war, and other expenses incurred for the com- 
mon defence and general welfare, &c. shall be defrayed out of a common 
treasury," to be " supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the num- 
ber of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, &:c. It was proposed by 
Mr. Chase, of Maryland, to amend it so as that the quotas Bhould'be fixed by 
the number of the ivhite inhabifanfs. 

It is a curious piece of political history, especially taken in connexion with 
asentiment expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that, in tlie de- 
cision of that question, all the slave-holding States, Delaware, Maryland, 
Virginia, North and South Carolina, (Georgia being divided,) voted in favor 
of the amendment; and New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, all substantially 
non-slave-holding States, voted against the amendment, and rejected it. it 
is worth while to notice th.e argument by which this decision was sustained.; 
and for this purpose I will read an extract from the speech of one of the most 
distinguished, eloquent, and (notwithstanding that the violence of party spirit 
induced many to undervalue his services and character,) I will say one of the 
most patriotic of our Revolutionary men. 

I read from the speech of Mr. John Adams, He observes: " That the 
number of people were taken, Ijy this article, as an index of the wealth of" the 
State, and not as subjects of taxation; that, as to this matter, it was of no 
consequence by what name you called your people, whetlier by that of iree- 
men or slaves; that, in some countries, the laboring poor were called freemen, 
in others, they were called slaves; but that the difference, as to the State, 
was imaginary only. "What matters it whether a landloid employing ten 
laborers on his farm gives them annually as much money as wiU buy them 
the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries atshurt hand? The ten 
laborers add as much wealth annually to the Slate— increase its exports as 
much in the one case as the other. Certainly, five hundred freenn^n produce 



jio more profiis, no greater isupplies for tlio payment of taxes, than five hun- 
dred slaves: therefore, tlie State in which the laborers are called freemen, 
should be taxed no more tlian that iii which they are called slaves. Suppose, 
by an extraoidinary operation of jnlirie, or of law, one half of the laborers ot 
a State could, in the course of one night, be transformed into slaves; would 
the State be made tlie poorer, or less able to pay taxes? That the condition of 
the laboring poor" in most countries, that of the fishermen, particularly, of 
the northern States, is as abject as that of slaves," &c. 

Here is the argument (in which there is certainly great force) upon which 
the southern States were taxed, from the beginning, in proportion to their 
whole slave population. It goes to prove that both kinds of labor ought to 
contribute to the support of Government equally; and authorizes the inference, 
as a legitimate deductian, that they are entitled to the same kind and degree 
of protection, and in the same mode — by being represented. But the argument 
Iktc is that a dittercnt and additional protection is to be given to the labor 
of the North, and that too at tlie expense of the labor of the South, though 
the character of the labor is the same as to the State, as w^ell as the actual 
condition of the laborer. 

There was no inconsistency in the course and opinions of the distinguished 
man, whose argument 1 have just quoted. Immediately after the decision 
referred to, came on another (juestion: how the States should be represented 
in the Congress of the confederacy? He spoke in favor of each State vating 
in proportion to the numbers of her people. tSome of them who had voted for 
taxing us, according to the number of our inhabitants, and who represented 
large States, were in favor of voting in proportion to the number of free inha- 
bitants. On this question the interests of the small States preponderated; 
and it Mas settled that each State should have one vote. 

In the Convention these questions again arose; and the arrangement of the 
subjects of taxation and repiesentation, in reference to the slaves, constituted 
one of those distracting subjects of controversy which brought the Convention 
to the verge of dissolution without agreeing to a plan of government. It could 
not but produce difficulty; it was not a question that could be settled by any 
rule of abstract right. For, to borrow again the language of Mr. Adams, in 
the same debate, "Reason, justice, and equity, never had weight enough, on 
the face of the earth, to govern the councils of men; it is interest alone which 
«loos it, and it is interest ."ilone which can be trusted; that, therefore, the in- 
terests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the interests 
without doors."* 

The representatives of the slave-holding States, in the convention, as welS 
as those of the non-slave-holding States, were fully sensible of this truth; and, 
by their course in that body, gave a new illustration of it; the interests with- 
out doors were represented by interests within; and the slave-holding States 
insisted that they were entitled to representation for their whole slave popu- 
lation; and the free States, that the slaves should not be counted at all. This 
contest resulted in the adoption of the rule of apportioning representation and 
direct taxes by the same ratio, and estimating three-fifths only of the slaves 
in regard to each. On what authority, then, does the gentleman refer to this 
clause of the Constitution, as conferring peculiar protection to the slave in- 
terest in the Syuth? Why may not we, with as much propriety, insist that 
it had secured to the labour of the North an advantage to which it was not 
entitled; and, for which, in the administration of the Government, we ought 
to have an e(|uivalent? Instead of having our whole population represented, 
as we thought it ought to have been, and for which we had the authority of 
Ml-. Adams, we insisted only upon a part being represented: while the tvhole 
populatK.n of the North Mas told. It was the result of that spirit of compro- 
mise which presided in the formation of the constitution; which, on several 
occasions, since its establishment, has effected its preservation; which must 
be invoked again, and now; and will not be invoked in vain, if the professions 

* Memoirs and covrespoiuleiice of Jefierson, vol. 1, page 27. 



«r devotion to the Union are as sincere as they ate loud, fieciueut, and osten- 

*Tlle 'gentleman from Massachusetts tells us, if the bargain were to be made 
over again, he would not make that compromise. 1 do nut wonder at all at it. 
If that unyielding spirit of forruude (as lie calls it) which he has manitested, 
had prevailed in the Convention, or a tithe part ot it, we should never have 
had this glorious Union, which he now professes so much anxiety to preserve. 
It'his spirit of fortitude be substituted t>>r their spirit of concord and con- 
ciliation, and his doctrines, as to the power and authority ot the Govern- 
ment, prevail, it requires little foresight to perceive that the Government inust 
end, sooner or later, either in an irretrievable dissolution ot the bonds ot union, 
or be converted into one vast consolidated Government.; which would be the 
sure and speedy precursor of a military despotism. , ,, ,, 

Sir, I had fondly hoped that, at this momentous epoch, Massachusetts would 
have been found standing by Virginia, in the cause of peace and harmony. 
1 could not tail to remember, with lively sensibdity, their early and constant 
association in the struggle for independence. Together they rocked the 
cradle of the Revolution; together they nursed and tostered the glorious ott- 
springof that Revolution— the union of these States, while it was rearing 
into vigor and maturity. They have differed, indeed, but I trust in no hostile 
spirit, as to the proper construction of the title-deeds, and the most judicious 
mode of managing the estate. Yet, I did hope that, animated by the same 
holy and ardent love of justice and liberty, they would yet be found stand- 
ing together again, and employing their moral and political strength in the pre- 
servation of the noble inheritance of union tiom being despoiled by the 
hand of injustice, or its existence destroyed by the hand ot violence. Sir, 
that hope is gone. , , . , . ^ , ^i 

The spirit which is here indicated was not that which animated the vene- 
rated band of sages, heroes, and patriots, who composed the convention; they 
had not yet learned to forget— they were deeply imbued with that raternal 
sympathy and affection which had been generated in the hearts of the Ame- 
rican people, by their common sufferings- their common perils— their common 
triumphs in a common cause. When the old confederacy was upon the eve 
of falling to pieces, and from causes which would have led inevitably to con- 
flicts between the parties to it, the members ot that convention, many ot 
whom had liazuiUcd thcii- lives, sacrificed their fortunes, and, in the cabinet 
or in the field, given their support lu ilie cause to whicli tlit-y liail pledged 
their sacred honor, came forward, and, with true and genuine fortitude, laid 
upon the altar of their country their prejudices^, their passions, and then- 
local interests. The idea of resorting to arms, for the purpose ot avoiding the 
apprehended conflicts, and quieting the existing disputes, was the last that 
would have entered into their minds. It was the alternative most abhorred, 
and to prevent which almost every thing was to be yielded. 

But now, when a crisis scarcely less appalling is perceived by all to exist, 
what is the spirit displayed— the sort of "■fortitude'^ recommended to us as 
more worthy of admiration even than the fear ot doing injustice.^ Every ex- 
asperating topic, calculated to inflame passion and frighten away harmony, is 
sought for, and forced into the debate; and we have an exhibition of fortitude, 
which, if it does not delight in, is determined to tlo nothing to prevent, a civil 
commotion— fortitude, which enables gentlemen, rather than make any con- 
cession, rather than make any change even in the form ot a law, to rejoice 
in the prospect of making an experiment ot tlie strength ot the Government— 
as philosophers kill rats in an air pump, to illustrate the truths of science; 
and, with cold blooded indifierence, regard the approach of a c()ntfict between 
Governments in arms, which, if it shall once begin, no eye hath seen, nor ear 
heard, nor can any tongue ailequately tell, its termination, or all its train ot 
unutterable horrors. This is not the tbititude ot patriots and statesmen, but 
that of professors and poets turned politicians; those 

"Heroes of tlie lust disclosure," (the very last,) 

" Who loolt on blood and carnag^e with due composure."— I't/'w/o/ McMorrog/i. 



Tlie gentleman, in the next place, deduces an argument in favor of this 
notion, that some peculiar protection is afforded to the slave interest of the 
South, tVoin that provision ot' tiie cnnslitution whicli stipulates that the United 
States shall protect each Stale at:, i..' L domestic violence. Is an opposition 
to the State laws and State authoiities, by " domestic violence," more likely 
to arise in the slave-holding States, than in the non-slave-hoiding States? I 
deny it. Let it be proved. Virginia has been a slave-holding State, or com- 
nuniiiy, for upwards of two hundred years. During all that time, there has 
never been any rising of the slaves against their masters, of a character so 
formidable as to require any i'oreign aid whatever — none which could not have 
been suppressed in a few days by the people in the neighborhood, with the 
utmost ease, without even mrirshalling the State authorities. Indeed, I know 
of but one event of the kind in the v;hqle Southern country, and that was the 
Southampton tragedy, which occurred in Virginia a year or two ago. This, 
in truth, was scarcely entitled to be regarded as an insurrection at all; it was 
a truly bloody, but aimless outrage of a madman and a few drunken followers. 
It is true, that, under the influence of a temporary panic occasioned by it, and 
a thousand unfounded rumors of contemplated and concerted risings in other 
places, an extraordinary and unfortunate debate was got up in the Vir- 
ginia Legislature, principally promoted and sustained, however, by those who 
have comparatively no direct interest in the subject: for thera, as here, it so 
happens that the anxiety which is manifested for the safety of the owners of 
slaves '• against domestic violence-' comes principally, not from slave owners 
themselves, or from the slave-holding part of the country, but from the gratui- 
tous, though I dare say amiable, solicitude of those who have little or no con- 
cern in tlie matter. Shall I be told that we have been indebted for our secu- 
rity, while a colony, to tlie protection atforded by the mother country, and since 
by the Union.? Unfortumiteiy for Vwi proposition and the argument, there 
have been two instances of domestic violence against the State or colonial go- 
vernments, by discontented and insurrectionary white men. I mean Bacon's 
rebellion in Virginia, and another of a character wholly different, and whicfi 
I am ashamed to mention in the same connexion— I mean Shay's insurrec- 
tion in Massachusetts. They were both very formidable. 

I have an impression on my mind--the gentleman from Massachusetts 
knows as well as any man whether it is well founded or not— that I have seen 
it stated, by some authority entitled to coniidenoc, ao a \mi(. ot tlie political 
history of this Govarnment, that tlic cAteiit and formidable character of the 
resistance to the State authorities in Massachusetts, by Shay and his followers 
contributed very essentially to overcome the reluctance which that State felt 
and manifested to send delegates to the convention in 1787.* Perhaps this 
fact may account for the peculiar arrangement of the States in voting upon a 
motion made in that convention, by a Southern member, to strike out the 
words "domestic violence," and insert "insurrections;" probably on the 
ground that the last word more distinctly embraced the kind of domestic 
violence that might be apprehended from the slaves. The votes were thus: 

Yeas— New .Tersey, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia 

Nays— New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Dela- 
win-e, and Maryland. 

Perhaps there was no essential difference between the two phrases; but it 
IS notat all "nlikely that the vote for retaining the words in the constitution 
was given in the full and awful recollection of that formidable resistance to 

, * f'"^? '"';:H'"-=^'/><='^e remarks, I fmcl the fact stated by me fully sustained by Mar- 

sliall s Life of Was ungton, page 111, olli vol.; and the insurrection described as much 

Tn^rnf ^ f"?'' ""."r fry^ "'"" ^ f Pi-e«ented it. The anecdote mentioned by me is 

hi ,vLinn, > • . 1 1™"'^ V' ^^' '""^""^^ "^^'^ ^y "^^- rn the account ^ven of 

.?„! o m'/ r f."'' '•" "'" ^'"'^^°"*>' of Colonel Lee, that "a majority of the 

•« 1 i ^^ ; r. • " r -r. '", *^PP"^'t'«". to tlie Government. Some bf the leaders 

; Son of n nnr;^" " 1 '' '" '^^^hcr object, together with the abolition of debts, the 

(li\ ision ol property, and a ro-union witli Great Britain," &c. 



the State of Massachusetts which was so extensive as, in many places, to pre- 
vent the ad niinist ration of justice, by driving the judges from their seats, and 
shutting up the court houses. And it is recorded of one of the judges, who 
happened to be something of a '' military chieftain" too, that he marched into 
his court at the head of some hundreds of the people who stood by the Go- 
vernment, in the face of a larger body of the rebels assembled to prevent him 
from going on with his business, and used this memorable expression, on 
taking his seat, that " he would live a judge, or die a general." 

Gentlemen ma^ rest assured that the people of the Southern slave-holding 
States estimate this vaunted protection to our slave interest, so far as it 
is regarded as furnishing us any peculiar safeguard, unconnected -with the 
general blessings of union, as of very little wortii. I expect there is not 
a Southern man within the sound of my voice who will not bear me out 
in the expression of the opinion, that there is no people on earth who 
live in less apprehension from ^'domestic violence" than the people of the 
South. In support of this opinion, I beg leave to read a passage from a work 
which contains an able, comprehensive, and philosopical analysis of all those 
questions of slavery, colonization, abolition, &c. which 1 would most earnestly 
and respectfully request our Northern friends to peruse in a candid and dis- 
passionate temper. If they will do so, I think they will at least be convinced 
that there is no occasion fur them to suffer so much kind and anxious solici- 
tude for our safety, or the comfort of our slaves. 

I read from Professor Dews' Review of the Debate in the Virginia Legisla- 
ture, in '31, '32: 

" We believe there was not a single citizen in Virginia who felt any alarm 
from the negroes previous to the Southampton tragedy; and we believe, at 
this moment, there are very few who feel the slightest apprehension. We 
liavc no doubt, paradoxical as it may seem to some, but that the population 
of our slave-holding country enjoys as much or more conscious security than 
any other people on the face of the globe- You will find, throughout the 
whole slave-holding portion of Virginia, and we believe it is the same in the 
Southern States generally, that the houses are scarcely ever fastened at night, 
so as to be completely inaccessible to those without, except in the towns. 
This simple fact is demonslralion complete of the conscious security of our 
citizens, and their great confidence in the fidelity of the blacks." 

The onlj' well-grouiKled cause of apprehension that we have proceeds from 
the perpetual teasing interference of deluded, but, I daresay, well-disposed 
fanatics, who infest our country with homilies about colonization, abolition, 
and emancipation. Sir, the only protection we have ever required, or proba- 
bly ever will require, on this subject, is to " let us alone," and we will leave 
the entire benefit of the constitutional provision now under consideration, to 
our brethren of the North, as a security against domestic violence from their la- 
borers, whom this tariffsystem, if carried out and persevered in, will grind down, 
ultimately, to the point of resistance here, as well as in England, from which 
it is borrowed, where the starving operatives in the manufactories are almost 
daily found lifting their hands against their employers, committing acts of law- 
less outrage and desperation, and having to be dispersed by the bayonets of the 
military. 

But this protection to us is alleged to be so peculiar and important tliat it is 
made the pretext for sustaining a system which, it would seem to be assumed 
by gentlemen on both sides, is almost exclusively injurious to the slave labor 
of the South, and beneficial to that of the North, but which, in my opinion, 
acts injuriously to the labor and industry of the country every where, thougli 
not in an equal degree. 

But, with these apparently avowed effects, it is asked that' this unjust and 
unequal system shall be continued; that the labor of the North, by means of 
burdens on the slave labor of the South, may be lifted above its natural eleva- 
tion in all other countries, so that the North may have no occasion for consti- 
tutional protection against " domestic violence," while we shall be compelled 
to reduce the comfort of our slaves, by reason of the diminished proht of slave 
labor, to the lowest point of depression, and thus ihe danger of " domr«tir vio- 



10 

lence" increased? and we are to be comforted and pacified with the asGui'ance 
that protection, thus rendered necessary, is secured to us by the constitution. 

Such is the character of the mild and beneficent protection for which we 
are to be persuaded not to act upon this matter at this time, lest one of the 
Southern States, vvhicli is not sufiicicntly sensible of its value, and has be- 
come refractory, should have a triumph, and this Government should lose 
so favorable an opportunity of manifesting its energy, by sending the army, 
the navy, and the militia " to sweep from the face of the earth the high- 
minded, gallant, and talented representatives of that State on this floor;" "to 
make all her rivers run red with blood, and to exterminate one-half her pre- 
sent population;" and this spectacle is thus almost invoked by one gentleman 
in language which "Danton, Marat, and Robespierre might blush to own;" 
and by another, who, in a sneering tone, says that he wants to see this peace^ 
able struggle; and, with heartless irony and derision, urges the adoption of his 
motion, in order that the authorities of South Carolina and of this Government 
may have an opportunity of showing the peaceful character of their measures-. 

3. The third source of protection to the slave interest of the South is fur* 
nished by the standing army and navy, on the score of which we ought to ac* 
quiesce in the protection ot domestic manufactures. 

And does the North derive no benefit from the army and navy.** Is it for 
the South to be reproached with the expense of keeping up the army and navy? 
It has been a standing reproach against us that we were not willing to consent 
to a sutficiently large force being kept up. The State of Virginia gave very 
strong evidence other indisposition to have a standing army, and that she did 
not want any such protection. One of the amendments proposed by her Con- 
vention, at the time of the adoption of the constitution was, " that no stand- 
ing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without 
the consent of two-thirds of the members present in both Houses." The pre- 
sent army is a mere skeleton, and the navy is inconsiderable in point 
of strength, though it has attracted universal favor by its valor and achieve- 
ments. But what are they.^ Not raised or kept up, certainly, for the 
purpose of giving protection to the slave interest of the South; they are the 
fruits of the " second war of independence," as it has been called, and which 
certainly did much to establish our national character abroad. 

This was a Southern war, waged for the protection- of Northern interests: 
for " Free trade and sailors' rights." And what have we got? Restricted 
trade, and our shippuig and commercial interests heavily burdened. 

And now the army and navy, which is kept up in case of future national 
emergencies, and which, in all quarters, has been assented to in consequence 
of the experience of the want of such establishments at the commencement 
of the war, is to be charged to the Southern States, and to constitute a reason 
for subjecting their industry to permanent and unequal taxation. And what 
is to be done with them now? This army and navy is to be employed to 
crush one of the Southern States — to make "all her rivers run red with the 
blood" of her gallant people; and this for the mere purpose of proving the 
strength of this Government, and illustrating the value of the Union. This 
is, indeed, protection: " but it is such protection as vultures give to lambs, 
covering and devouring them," 

Let me not be misunderstood, I am not either the advocate or apologist 
of the proceedings of South Carolina. I do not believe in her doctrine of 
State interposition. Far from it. I believe it false in theory, and that in 
practice it nmst be disastrous, inevitably ending in force or separation, and 
perhaps both. The measures that have been adopted there, are, in my esti- 
mation, rash, precipitate, and unconstitutional. The citizens of these States 
cannot, 1 think, be justitied in resisting the regular and lawful authority of 
this Government by any law or ordinance of the State, so long as the State 
itsell remains a member of the Union, And this Government has no discre- 
tion but to go on and execute the laws which are sanctioned by all its consti- 
tuted authorities. 

Whenever I am called uptm to act on that question, painful astheduty may 



11 

be, if the attitude now assumed by South Carolina be persevered in, or should 
be assumed by any other State— as a member of this House, as a Representa- 
tive of the State of Virginia, I shall feel impelled by the duty I owe to the 
constitution which I have sworn to support, to give my sanction to any safe, 
prudent, and constitutional measure, to enable this Government to execute 
its laws, taking care to adopt such only as are necessary and best calculated 
to avoid collision. I have ever, in public and in private, cherished a disposition 
to acquiesce in the constitutionally expressed will of the majority, so long as 
that acquiescence does not sink into submission, to deliberate, palpable, and 
dangerous injustice and oppression. In a Government of opinion, such as 
ours, covering so vast an extent of territory, it is vain to expect that there 
will not arise great diversity of sentiment, and much collision of hostile and 
irreconcilable interests. I am too deeply sensible of the infirmity of my own 
judgment, as well as the intrinsic difficulty and delicacy of many of the ques- 
tions on which these differences of opinion and collisions of interests are ma- 
iiifestet!, to countenance the bigotry which would denounce all who differ 
with me as seduced by folly or actuated by knavery. I am not, therefore, 
prepared to buckle on my armor for the purpose of resistmg every measure 
which I deem unauthorized, and which operates injuriously to my interests. 
But there are limits to the respect which is due to the controlling authority of 
a majority: " to be rightful, it must be just." It must be exercised iri a 
spirit of moderation and forbearance. Constitutional Governments are in- 
tended to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities. When these bar- 
riers are broken down, and the will of the majority is displayed in infractions 
of the charter, and in perverting the powers conferred upon it to the purpose 
of oppression, it will be time even for temperate men to begin to inquire whether 
" the mask of freedom," whicli will then be worn, '•' is any better than the bold un- 
covered front of tyranny." I speak in no other tone than that in which Virginia 
claimed her rights when she adopted the constitution; when she '^declared 
and made known that the powers granted under the constitution, being deriv- 
ed from the people of the UnitedjStates, may be resumed by them whenever 
the same shall be perverted to their injury and oppression." 

And whenever abuses and usurpations are thus persevered in, and a deaf 
ear is turned to the voice of supplication for justice and forbearance, secession 
will become nof only a risht, but a sacred duty. And, in the language of Mr. 
Madison, "■ it cannot be doubted that a ^inde member of the Union, in the ex- 
tremity supposed, but in that only, would nave a right, as an extra and ultra 
constitutional right," " to appeal from the cancelled obligations of the constitu- 
tional compact to original rights and the law of self-preservation."* 

When that attitude is assumed by any State or number of States, what will 
be the relations, the rights, povyers and duties of the co-States and of this Go- 
vernment, towards the seceding State or States, are queries I will not go 
into further than to say, that there will be presented a question of peace or 
war between sovereignties, or Governments representing sovereignties; a ques- 
tion to be decided, as all such questions must be, in reference to all the cir- 
cumstances of the case when presented, and the consequences which will fol- 
low the decision; and to be settled only by acquiescence, negotiation, or public 
war. 

It is urged, however, by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and probably 
by other gentlemen, that we ought not to pass any bill, no matter how unob- 
jectionable in itself; because that would be to confirm the South Carolina 
ordinance — because, as I understood the argument, the operation of the ordi- 
nance will be obviated by the passage of any bill whatever. This is a con- 
sideration which will recommend to me the passage of almost any bill which 
does not aggravate the inequality and injustice of the present tariff, of 1832, 
which I think it would not be easy to do. I would rejoice at having an op- 
portunity, by such (if there be no other) peaceable means, to postpone a con- 

* The State, of course, must judge for herself of the existence of the extremity; has 
a right so to judge, and to act upon tliat judgment, as a sovereign State. 



12 

jlict, Nvhicli I am so solicitous to prevent now. I trust, however, that we shall 
not be satisfied with this. If we cannot agree to pass the bill reported by the 
Committee of Ways and Means, let us not give up the eftbrt to do some- 
thing material tovv'ards restoring the tranquillity of the country. Let us rea- 
son together, one with another, as men — as brethren — as statesmen — and 
not as mere politicians, or partisans, and we surely can agree on something, 
in a spirit of brotherly love, an'l by making mutual sacrifices of opinion and 
of interests, which will compose this great strife, now and forever. 

But the great argument against the passage of this bill is, that South Caro- 
lina is in a menacing attitude; that it v/oiiid be to yield to unmanly fear to 
accede to her demands; that it would be to give up all she asks; and that it 
is unbecoming the dignity of the Government for us to comply with demands 
made by South Carolina, with arms in her hands. I do not design to add. 
any thing to what has been already so ably and eloquently said by the gentle- 
men from New York and Georgia, (Messrs. Veuplanck and Wilde,) in 
answer to this argument. 

I think, on examination, it will be Jound that all tiie declamation — all the 
denunciation — all the appeals to passion, to prejudice, and to pride — which 
have been so freely poured forth from all quarters, in support of tliis argu- 
ment, have no foundation in fact. And, if it were not impossible to suppose 
that honorable gentlemen here, at such a time, could be influenced by such 
motives, it would be difficult to resist the belief that they were used as mere 
pretexts, to inflame and mislead — to deceive ourselves and others. 

Does this bill satisfy the demands of South Carolina.'' Will its passage 
prostrate the Government at her feet, by yielding to her menaces every thing 
she asks? What says the address of the Convention of South Carolina to 
the people of the United States.^ — " But we arc willing to make a large 
offering to preserve the Union, and, with a distinct declaration that it is a con- 
cession on our part, we will consent that the same rate of duty may be im- 
posed upon the protected articles that shall be imposed upon the unprotected; 
provided tliat no more revenue be raised than is necessary to meet the demands 
of the Government for constitutional purposes; and provided, also, that a 
duly substantially uniform be imposed on all foreign imports." This is her 
ultimatum, lofty enough, and somewhat arrogant. Here is what she asks; 
with which, as a concession, but with which alone, slip will bo cotistied. Now, 
doe« (he bill answer and satisfy this di^niand? Does it meet, or approach even 
an equalization of duties upon protected and unprotected articles.^ Or are 
the rates of duty on all foreign imports substantially uniform.^ No, nothmg 
like it. This bill has been framed by gentlemen on the Committee of Ways 
ancl Means lioin all parts of the Union, as a compromise of the controversy in 
which neither side has demanded, or had a right to demand, every thing to be 
yielded to it, which it thouglit strict justice would give. The rates of duty 
proposed by it vary on the protected and unprotected articles widely, an<l in 
favor of the former, and very many, and some considerable subjects of foreign 
imports, are admitted free of duty. South Carolina, I have no question, if the 
bill passes in some such form as it M^as reported, will abandon the position she 
has taken. The authority of the Government will be sustained, and there will 
be a triumph over nullification. And those gentlemen who have made it a 
stalking-horse from which to declaim in favor of the authority of the Govern- 
ment, and to denounce in unmeasured terms the gallant and patriotic people 
(tl South Cai-olinn, and her eloquent and highminded politicians, would then 
be gratified in having this heresy put down; not, to be sure, by using the 
hempen cords which the honorable gentlem.an from Pennsylvania [Mr. Muh- 
I.ENBLKG] thinks we ought to be preparing for the convention and people of 
Sou^th Carolina, whom he characterizes as " a handful of conspirators;" not 
by ^sweeping from the face of the earth her representatives on this floor." 
and \ making all her rivers run red with the blood" of her people; not by sa- 
tisfying the phdosophical and humane desire of thosg who wish to witness the 
expenment ol the strength of the Union tried by .a conflict between Govern- 



13 

nients m arms; but put down by tlie quiet, piMccable, and irresistible power 
of public sentiment, which is more terrible than " an army with banners." 

Pass the bill, and you will quell tlie spirit of disorder and discontent wiiich 
has already broken out into almost open resistance in one State, and which, 
stimulated as it has been by the "false doctrine, heresy, and schism,-' that has 
mingled in the controversy, there is loo much reason to tear is spreading into 
the neighboring States, and may break forth into a llame, if, instead of passing 
the bill, and exercising a spirit of forbearance and moderation, the whole mili- 
tary and naval power of the country is employed to punish and subdue a sister 
State, which, although she " starts madly from her sphere," has been impelled 
by what she regards an intolerable extremity of oppression. 

Remember that those neighboring States, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, 
Virginia, Mississippi, and perhaps Tennessee, concur with her in thinking 
this oppression exists, and, many of them, that the system of which it is the 
fruit is unauthorised by the constitution. 

Remember, too, that we have it from the authority of the President, and 
from the head of the Treasury ,_ and from the Committee of Ways and Means, 
that the revenue from the tariifof 1832 will exceed all the legitimate wants of 
tlic Government, estimated upon a liberal scale ofexpenditure, bysix millions 
of dollars. And, then, let me ask, if it is not enough to make the blood of 
every freeman boil with indignation, that this Government — this Congress- 
is called upon, in spite of the opinion and the wishes of the Executive Magis- 
trate, and tiie Iiead of the Treasury, to persist in exacting millions from the 
people, and not to abate one jot or tittle, even at the hazard of drenching the 
iields of South Carolina with the blood of her sons? 1 beg gentlemen to re- 
flect upon the consequences, and to hesitate before tiiey take upon themselves 
so fearful a reponsibility. 

Mr. Chairman, the political student in this country, while investigating the 
origin and spirit of our institutions, is naturally led to examine thoseluminous 
and profound letters under the signature of Publius, written by Messrs. Madi- 
son, Hamilton, and Jay, for the purpose of recommending the adoption of the 
Federal constitution. One of the leading sentiments inculcated in that saga- 
cious work is, that the chief danger to confederacies is from anarchy among 
the members, rather than tyranny in the head. While we may not be pre- 
pared to admit this in all its latitude, none who have observed the operations 
and progress of the Government can fail to acknowledge that the whiskey in- 
surrection in Pennsylvania: tlve opposition and resistance to the embargo law 
of Mr. Jefterson's administration in the r?ew Knglantl States; the liarttord 
Convention during the war; and the lowering storm that is now brewing iu 
the South; all attest the truth that great danger is to be apprehended to the 
stability of the Government from the former source. While it is undoubted- 
ly no less true, that the growing corruptions of this Government, the rapid 
, and alarming increase of its patronage, and its continually manifested propen- 
sity, in all its departments, to strengthen and amplify its own powers, even to 
the extentof claiming authority to do everything which it thinks will promote 
the common defence and general welfare— thus abrogating, at " one tell 
swoop," all constitutional restraints— give awful proof that there is at least 
equal danger to the liberties of the people and the rights of the States from 
tyranny in the head. Let us, therefore, ever be mindful, and at this time 
especially, that there may be an excess, both of jealousy and conlidence, ui 
this Government; that the centripetal as well as centrifugal tendencies ol our 
system are to be vigilantly watched and guarded against; that disunion and 
consolidation are evils alike to be avoided, and, perhaps, equally to be appre- 
hended. Fully impressed with these sentiments, let usadmmistcr the powers 
conhded to us under this constitution, according ''to the plani sense and in- 
tention of the framers of it;" neither enlarging them by constructive expan- 
sion, nor restricting them by constructive limitation. Thus administered, 1 
believe that the great American system of free confederated republics liere 
established, will be found sufficient, as it is indispensable, to the perpetuity, 
peace, and prosperity oft^is M'hole Union. 



14 

Let us tlien clin^ to our Union, as to the anchor of our political hopes. Let 
VIS revere tliis constitution as the political bark, which is freighted with a 
lich cargo of every thing most precious to us. Thus far, it has "borne 
the battle and the breeze," and moved on amidst the war of elements, in the 
full tide of successful experiment. God grant that it may yet be guided by 
wisdom, firmness, patriotism, and, above all, by a spirit of mutual forbearance 
and conciliation; and so continue its march prosperously, gloriously, trium- 
phantly. 



February 7, 1833. 

Mr. ADAMS having rejoined to the foregoing, Mr. PATTON said, in sub- 
stance, as follows: 

Mr. Patton said he did not think that any thing had fallen from the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts which demanded a particular reply from him, and 
certainly not in any spirit of recrimination. The gentleman has abstained 
from making any lemarks personally offensive to me, and if he had not done 
so, I should probably have been disposed to adopt the course he has now pur- 
sued, and " begged him to excuse my salute." The remarks made by me the 
other day, which have given him personal offence, were, I thought, justified 
and called for by the character and spirit of his speech, to which they were 
intended to be a reply; but were certainly not prompted by any sentivnent of 
personal hostility to him. 

There is one remark, however, that he has made, which it may be proper 
for me to notice. He "seems to suppose that 1 undertake to represent the 
opinions of the State of Virginia upon all the interesting topics which recent 
events have broug^htinto discussion. I indulge in no such presumption. I do 
not know that my opinions on these questions are those which are entertained 
by a majority of the people of Virginia. I do not even know that my opinions 
accord with those of my immediate constituents. In the absence of any 
distinct and precise knowledge of their opinions and wishes, I endeavor here 
to make up opinions for myself, and act on them deliberately, candidly, and 
independently. . , . -^ . 

1 do not know that I bt-long io any " school of politics" in Virginia or else- 
where. I do not follow the dictation of any leader. My motto is — " nullius 
addidus jiirarc in verba magistri;^^ and 1 know that, in relation to some of 
the delicate and important questions which the present times have brought 
into debate, my opinions differ in some respects, not entirely unessential, from 
many of those with whom I in general agree in opinion, and with whom I am 
proud in general to act, and who are supposed to belong to the " school of 
politics" to which the gentleman has done me the honor to say he regrets to see 
that I belong- 
There is one other remark made by the honorable gentleman, as to which 
1 wish to say a word. He has thought proper to mention the name of Wash- 
ington, as one of a " school of politics" in Virginia. No man can be prouder 
than I am that I am a citizen of^that State which gave birth to " the Father of 
his country"— the first, the last, the only Washington. He, sir, belonged to 
no party. He was above them all. Let us cherish his memory, as furnishing 
at least one example of a pure, single minded patriot. Let no man draw wa- 
ter from the muddy pool of party politics to sprinkle on the snowy mantle of 
his fame, which is yet without spot or blemish. 

And John Marshall, too. Does the gentleman suppose that there is any man 
more ready than I am to award the homage of sincere respect for the -illus- 
trious Chief Justice? The purity and consistency of his life and character 
have extorted from almost all men of all parties a sentiment of admiration. 
His head is the pride of his country; his heart an ornament of human nature. 



15 

He is elevated by his high station, not more than by his own lofty virtue, 
above the contaminating atmosphere of faction by which he is surrounded— 

*• Like some tall clift'that lifts its awful form. 
Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm, 
Though rolling clouds around its base are spread, 
Eternal sunshine settles on its head." 

But let me tell the gentleman that I remember, too, with pride and exulta- 
tion, that my native State is the birth place of Jefferson, the apostle ot liberty 
and the friend of man— the author of the Declaration ot Independence— whose 
principles will be admired wherever liberty has an asylum, or freedom a vo- 
tary; and of Madison, the author of the Virginia resolutions and report ot 
1799 — than wh(mi a purer patriot or better man has never lived— and long may 
he live, but yet not outlive tiiat constitution ot which he is the last surviving 
signer— that constitution over whicit he still Avatches with more than parental 
anxiety and solicitude for its preservation, pure and undefiled. 

As to the argument between the gentleman and myselt, it is betore the com- 
mittee to judge between us. I will only remark, as to tiie authorities now 
produced by the gentleman, that, as to most ot them, particularly those taken 
from the debates in the Virginia convention, properly understood, they sup- 
port my view of the subject; and, as to the rest, they depend upon <he weight 
which is to be given to such general phrases as '• the American people,' the 
whole people,"' " the people of the Union," &c. which may be found in abun- 
dance in every political treatise, essay, and Fourth ot July oration, when the 
attention of the author is not pointed to the particular question on which we 
are at issue. That question is, whether this constitution is a compact between 
sovereign States, or the constitution of a single Government, made by tlie peo- 
nle of jTu the States as one political community. ^ , ^ ii ■ 

I certainly never intended to deny that this Government aced, and had a 
right to act, upon the individual citizens of the States. On the contrary, I 
stited subs antially, if not in terms, that in the exercise of its powers, the Go- 
vernment wapart^^ national and partly federal, but that .'" its origin it was 
STyfedemh which is precisely the character given to it by Mr Madison 
wo Long those having any title to be considered political teachers .the 
one with whose opinions 1 believe my own accord more nearly than with those 
cf any other " master," though I do not " swear to all his words. ' 



SQ 



